The oldest way to defend land is through a physical barrier, such as a wall. Yet some Americans dispute the efficacy of a wall when defending our southern border against infiltration from either illegal immigrants or terrorists.

One country is not buying into that notion: Saudi Arabia.

Last week, a Saudi general was killed in a skirmish with ISIS at the border with Iraq, along which Saudi Arabia is constructing a 600-mile-long wall:

Image Credit: UPI

The prospect of this wall separating Iraq from Saudi Arabia is not a welcome one for ISIS, whose goals include capturing Saudi Arabia - home to the Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina.

Saudi Arabia's oil fields are another key strategic goal for the terror group intent on creating a Sharia-run caliphate.

Construction began on the wall last September and, according to Jane's,

The Kingdom is also creating a 1,000 mile wall along its border with Yemen to the south.

If the Saudis are putting this much stock in a wall, why do some in the United States claim that tactic won't work here?

For one thing, the Mexican-U.S. border wall being constructed is more of a fence and not a fully integrated security solution.

Also, the Saudi's wall is solely constructed in a desert, while the United States boundary includes a river. Wildlife concerns make it difficult to place a fortified border wall next to a body of water.

But, with the economic and public health threat posed by illegal border crossings and potential terrorism concerns, some feel that Congress might do well to take a cue from the Saudi solution—especially with the reported weaknesses with our own border security.

Unfortunately, within the fortress they are building, Saudi Arabia is still denying its citizens the most basic human rights. According to Yahoo News, the kingdom has 'sparked an international outcry' for sentencing a blogger to 1,000 lashings for insulting Islam.